Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

55,132 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#260269 Oct 4, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>Oh my....I think you just out dumbed yourself!

How does loose debris free falling negate my comments about momentum or static vs. dynamic loading of the upper and lower blocks of the building????

Or relate for that matter!

Seriously, get a grip Ignorance...you're trying so hard to insult me that you no longer see the forest through the trees!
Really, you dont see how large chunks in free fall are no longer having resistance act upon them? And you don't see how objects ejected outside the buildings footprint no longer exert the same downward force as an object inside of it?

Of course not, because you are not a man of science, you are simply a man of the perpetual smear campaign. You can't debate without insults and straw-men, so no wonder you are here and the anti-spoon benders don't want you at the jref forum.

Here's an intelligent discussion about the NIST WTC 7 investigation, unlike the one here that has just become Dudley and friends smear campaign against people and reason.

http://www.metabunk.org/threads/does-nist-not...

Insults Are Easier

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#260270 Oct 4, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>For one thing, I don't need to agree with everything everyone with a functioning brain does.
What? You don't need to agree with everything everyone with a functioning brain does?

Well thats been obvious for years, Dudley, because you would need a functioning brain to that, and thats why for you

Insults Are Easier

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#260271 Oct 4, 2013
And its Friday, Dudley, so enjoy the thermate music. Id like to hear your uncreative stuff btw. Dudley plays cover music badly!

http://youtu.be/jSgyDq_Q8J8

Insults Are Easier
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#260272 Oct 4, 2013
Once again our government has been caught red handed in a LIE. The following link was just released as of 3/2013 and it proves beyond all and any doubt that there was most certainly NO PLANE that crashed into the Pentagon or Shanksville.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#260273 Oct 4, 2013

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#260274 Oct 4, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
The lower part of the building was weakened???
Where did that come from???
According to NIST the lower part of the building was undamaged.
Right, but it crumbled to the ground anyway. Oh yeah the invisible stress wave that preceded it pre-weakened the lower part of the undamaged building. But it wasn't required pig says.

Oh now I got it. Yeah that's it. The invisible stress wave that porker pig boy imagined. Everybody knows before buildings fall down there is an invisible stress wave that weakens the lower part, but not necessarily according to pig boy .

Very good debwunking porker pig boy.

Huh eh !

You are a total embarrassment to pigs everywhere.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#260275 Oct 4, 2013
Maybe porker pig boy will tell us where he got the idea for the invisible stress wave from.

From Bazant maybe? Yeah Bazant probably can come up with an algebraic formula for invisible stress waves.

Hey looky I found it! Here it is.

Invisible Stress Wave

D dt (Z z(t) 0 &#956;(S)s&#729;(S)dS ) &#8722; g Z z(t) 0 &#956;(S)dS = &#8722; Fc(z, z&#729;)(1) 3 where t = time, z = vertical (Lagrangian) coordinate = distance of the current crushing front from the initial position of the tower top; the superior dots denote time derivatives; &#956;(S)= initial specific mass of tower (mass of a story divided by its height) at point of initial coordinate S; s&#729;(S)= velocity of material point with initial coordinate S. It will suffice to consider the velocity, as well as the momentum density, to be distributed throughout the compacted layer linearly.

Cool Huh

EH !

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#260276 Oct 4, 2013
onemale wrote:
The thing that puzzles me is... the fuel didn't explode until the plane was well into the building. The fuel tanks should have ruptured upon impact therefore most of the fuel and fire should have been on the entry point and on the side of the buildings. Instead the biggest explosion was on the opposite side of the building which is impossible if it was jet fuel from the plane.
According to a military demolition expert; the color of the flame was the wrong color for jet fuel. He said it was the correct color for explosives.
Nonsense. The plane entered the building in a fraction of a second. It was going 733.33 feet per second. Fuel ignition would not have taken place until the plane was completely lodged in the building. What's more, the fuel tanks were in the wings which penetrated the building and ruptured filling the immediate area with fuel well inside the building. The fuel spilled down the elevator shaft burning people in the lobby. You don't appear to know much about fires and flame fronts do you. Was your so called expert at the scene or is he just another street corner junkie?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#260277 Oct 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?a nnotation_id=annotation_93898 &feature=iv&index=1 &list=PL4FT2q1bKC4pczjrm7i PmpaCZnq0LpsCC&src_vid=XJx Pg95SxbU&v=aSod8QAnRow
Where's the Boeing 757?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Carefully edited film proves nothing. The plane was inside the building.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#260278 Oct 4, 2013
onemale wrote:
Once again our government has been caught red handed in a LIE. The following link was just released as of 3/2013 and it proves beyond all and any doubt that there was most certainly NO PLANE that crashed into the Pentagon or Shanksville.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =XJxPg95SxbUXX
Explain where flight 77 went if not into the Pentagon.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#260279 Oct 4, 2013
Once initiated, there was no "dynamic" impact and cumulative weight loading.

Just the opposite in fact.

So as the progression continued, at near total free fall speed in air, the ejecting fountain-like debris plume chasing those outer perimeter steel frame pieces all the way to the ground, to within a mere second or two, the total load became increasingly weight-LESS!- relative to, an increasingly stronger steel core structure + perimeter support, since everything was tapered ever thicker toward the bottom, to handle the entire load of the rest of the building.

Think about that, and then explain continual momentum at about free fall speed, in air...?

You cannot. Not without altering the laws of physics, and nullifying the work of Newton and Gallileo in the process.

That's who you're up against, the moment you try to explain the actual collapse itself.

http://911blogger.com/node/9154

Where's the piledriver?

I know someone who will give it a try.

Huh Eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#260280 Oct 4, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense. The plane entered the building in a fraction of a second. It was going 733.33 feet per second. Fuel ignition would not have taken place until the plane was completely lodged in the building. What's more, the fuel tanks were in the wings which penetrated the building and ruptured filling the immediate area with fuel well inside the building. The fuel spilled down the elevator shaft burning people in the lobby. You don't appear to know much about fires and flame fronts do you. Was your so called expert at the scene or is he just another street corner junkie?
YOU weren't there either asshole. And it has been shown time and time again that you just spew claims without any links as to where you got your erroneous information.

You're not smart enough to come up with any thing real yourself so how about slipping in a link or two to back up your bullshit.

Huh eh !

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#260281 Oct 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Once initiated, there was no "dynamic" impact and cumulative weight loading.
Just the opposite in fact.
So as the progression continued, at near total free fall speed in air, the ejecting fountain-like debris plume chasing those outer perimeter steel frame pieces all the way to the ground, to within a mere second or two, the total load became increasingly weight-LESS!- relative to, an increasingly stronger steel core structure + perimeter support, since everything was tapered ever thicker toward the bottom, to handle the entire load of the rest of the building.
Think about that, and then explain continual momentum at about free fall speed, in air...?
You cannot. Not without altering the laws of physics, and nullifying the work of Newton and Gallileo in the process.
That's who you're up against, the moment you try to explain the actual collapse itself.
http://911blogger.com/node/9154
Where's the piledriver?
I know someone who will give it a try.
Huh Eh !
False. Nowhere near free fall speed.

Ejection of parts is what happens when structures fail. Numerous models have been constructed at various universities proving this fact.

False. It is obvious the upper stories pounded each successive piece into failure. The bottom did not drop out as in controlled demolitions.

Of course all this has been debunked numerous times, but welcome to your personal delusion. Don't expect intelligent people to buy it.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#260282 Oct 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU weren't there either asshole. And it has been shown time and time again that you just spew claims without any links as to where you got your erroneous information.
You're not smart enough to come up with any thing real yourself so how about slipping in a link or two to back up your bullshit.
Huh eh !
Getting defensive and posting ad hominem statements. Looks like insults are easier for you too. You have failed to refute even one point I made.

Try a little harder next time.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#260283 Oct 4, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Carefully edited film proves nothing. The plane was inside the building.
How did the wings and the engines and the tail section get into the building?

Do you have a heavily edited video of that?

The plane took off without any passengers and could have landed at a hundred unused airfields unnoticed. I explained that days ago. You're not keeping up waste of water.

Nobody has anything to prove to you or anybody else.

Huh Eh !

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#260284 Oct 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
How did the wings and the engines and the tail section get into the building?
Do you have a heavily edited video of that?
The plane took off without any passengers and could have landed at a hundred unused airfields unnoticed. I explained that days ago. You're not keeping up waste of water.
Nobody has anything to prove to you or anybody else.
Huh Eh !
At 733.33 feet per second, where else would they go. The wall was full of windows. The building was built in the 40s and is hardly impenetrable.

The plane was seen being boarded by hundreds of people. Airline personnel collected the tickets. The pilots got on the plane. It took off and was tracked as well as having routine communications. Then things went wrong. Olsen made a phone call explaining what was happening. The Air National Guard C130 pilot saw the maneuver and the crash. Hundreds of people also saw the American Airlines plane. How can you explain all this away? Your scenario is rather unconvincing and flies in the face of factual evidence, but thanks for sharing you implausible opinion.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#260285 Oct 4, 2013
How did the wings and the engines and the tail section get into the building?

Did it all go through the sort of round hole exactly at ground level where cruise missiles are designed to hit?

For the body of a plane that size to hit at that point on the ground the engines would be many feet below ground level, and there were no marks on the grass.

We can argue this till our cycles synchronize.

You will still lose.

No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

Huh Eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#260286 Oct 4, 2013
The wall was full of windows. The building was built in the 40s and is hardly impenetrable.

Sure windows that didn't break.

Penetration of a Boeing 757 implies leaving a hole where once there was none.

There was only one hole that was not big enough for the wings, engines or tail section.

Penetration, however slight is sufficient to complete the offense. Only in this case there was no offense.

None taken.

Huh eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#260287 Oct 4, 2013
waste of water you are a planted shill. Why are you still at work? Your shift doesn't even start till 0300 hours.

Huh Eh !

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#260288 Oct 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
How did the wings and the engines and the tail section get into the building?
Did it all go through the sort of round hole exactly at ground level where cruise missiles are designed to hit?
For the body of a plane that size to hit at that point on the ground the engines would be many feet below ground level, and there were no marks on the grass.
We can argue this till our cycles synchronize.
You will still lose.
No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.
Huh Eh !
False. There was no round hole but many windows on several levels. The round hole picture is a brick wall in the courtyard. You are still talking nonsense. Hundreds of people saw what happened. Where did the plane go if not into the Pentagon?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 hr MOGADORE 994,029
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 3 hr MKULTRA 59,649
Why did O.J. criminal trial jurors IGNORE cuts ... 3 hr Doctor REALITY 4
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 5 hr Crazy Horse 619,877
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 5 hr Crazy Horse 446,253
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 hr Crazy Horse 695,512
Last Post Wins !!! [ game time :) ] (Jan '11) 7 hr Hatti_Hollerand 2,497
wierd situation with my mom. (Jul '14) Mon Pimpy 23
More from around the web